feat(native): add support for win arm64 unwind codes#978
Draft
klochek wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Conversation
Instructions and example for changelogPlease add an entry to Example: ## Unreleased
### Features
- add support for win arm64 unwind codes ([#978](https://github.com/getsentry/symbolic/pull/978))If none of the above apply, you can opt out of this check by adding |
klochek
force-pushed
the
christopherklochek/win_arm64_unwind
branch
from
6d605d3 to
08f62b8
Compare
klochek
force-pushed
the
christopherklochek/win_arm64_unwind
branch
from
08f62b8 to
614ab8b
Compare
loewenheim
reviewed
May 18, 2026
Contributor
loewenheim
left a comment
loewenheim
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Very impressive! I basically only have some stylistic nits.
| writer: &'a mut dyn Write, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // The kinds of registers the can be saved for unwinding. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| // The kinds of registers the can be saved for unwinding. | |
| // The kinds of registers that can be saved for unwinding. |
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Computes the memory location relative to CFI, offset above SP |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These could all be doc comments.
Suggested change
| // Computes the memory location relative to CFI, offset above SP | |
| /// Computes the memory location relative to CFI, offset above SP |
Comment on lines
+1331
to
+1332
| " .{typ}{first_reg}: .cfa {} + ^ .{typ}{second_reg}: .cfa {} + ^", | ||
| o1, o2 |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| " .{typ}{first_reg}: .cfa {} + ^ .{typ}{second_reg}: .cfa {} + ^", | |
| o1, o2 | |
| " .{typ}{first_reg}: .cfa {o1} + ^ .{typ}{second_reg}: .cfa {o2} + ^" |
Comment on lines
+1346
to
+1347
| " .x{reg}: .cfa {} + ^ .lr: .cfa {} + ^", | ||
| o1, o2 |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| " .x{reg}: .cfa {} + ^ .lr: .cfa {} + ^", | |
| o1, o2 | |
| " .x{reg}: .cfa {o1} + ^ .lr: .cfa {o2} + ^" |
| let second_reg = first_reg + 1; | ||
|
|
||
| self.last_reg_kind = typ; | ||
| self.last_reg_num = first_reg + 1; |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| self.last_reg_num = first_reg + 1; | |
| self.last_reg_num = second_reg; |
Comment on lines
+1456
to
+1457
| if matches!(code.code, Arm64UnwindCode::End) | ||
| || matches!(code.code, Arm64UnwindCode::EndC) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| if matches!(code.code, Arm64UnwindCode::End) | |
| || matches!(code.code, Arm64UnwindCode::EndC) | |
| if matches!(code.code, Arm64UnwindCode::End | Arm64UnwindCode::EndC) |
| function.function_length(), | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| for (instruction_num, code) in unwind_codes.iter().rev().enumerate() { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the reason for the rev? Are codes just generally returned in reverse order?
Comment on lines
+1473
to
+1483
| Arm64UnwindCode::AllocSmall { size_bytes } => { | ||
| enc.alloc_stack(size_bytes)?; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| Arm64UnwindCode::AllocMedium { size_bytes } => { | ||
| enc.alloc_stack(size_bytes)?; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| Arm64UnwindCode::AllocLarge { size_bytes } => { | ||
| enc.alloc_stack(size_bytes)?; | ||
| } |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could unify these arms:
Suggested change
| Arm64UnwindCode::AllocSmall { size_bytes } => { | |
| enc.alloc_stack(size_bytes)?; | |
| } | |
| Arm64UnwindCode::AllocMedium { size_bytes } => { | |
| enc.alloc_stack(size_bytes)?; | |
| } | |
| Arm64UnwindCode::AllocLarge { size_bytes } => { | |
| enc.alloc_stack(size_bytes)?; | |
| } | |
| Arm64UnwindCode::AllocSmall { size_bytes } | Arm64UnwindCode::AllocMedium { size_bytes } | Arm64UnwindCode::AllocLarge { size_bytes } => { | |
| enc.alloc_stack(size_bytes)?; | |
| } |
| first_reg, | ||
| offset_bytes, | ||
| } => { | ||
| // save pair <x(19+2*#X),lr> at [sp+#Z*8], offset <= 504 |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just to make sure (this applies to some of the other branches too): first_reg is already the number 19 + 2 *#X?
Comment on lines
+1578
to
+1590
| if pair { | ||
| if preindexed { | ||
| enc.save_pre_indexed_pair(typ, reg, offset_bytes)?; | ||
| } else { | ||
| enc.save_indexed_pair(typ, reg, offset_bytes)?; | ||
| } | ||
| } else { | ||
| if preindexed { | ||
| enc.save_pre_indexed(typ, reg, offset_bytes)?; | ||
| } else { | ||
| enc.save_indexed(typ, reg, offset_bytes)?; | ||
| } | ||
| } |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could match on (pair, preindexed) here instead.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
(Keeping as a draft for the moment; goblins hasn't pushed a new release w/ arm64 support yet.)